How to win an argument (at the US Supreme Court, or anywhere) | Neal Katyal

翻译人员: Emma Cao 校对人员: Yolanda Zhang

Fourteen years ago,

十四年前，

I stood in the Supreme Court to argue my first case.

我在美国高等法院 辩护了我的第一个案件。

And it wasn't just any case,

而这不是一个普通的案件，

it was a case that experts called

这个案件被专家称为

one of the most important cases the Supreme Court had ever heard.

最高法院处理过的 最重要的案件之一。

It considered whether Guantanamo was constitutional,

它辩论了关塔那摩是否合法，

以及《日内瓦公约》 适不适用于反恐战争。

and whether the Geneva Conventions applied to the war on terror.

It was just a handful of years after the horrific attacks

当时，911 恐怖事件

才刚过去几年。

of September 11.

The Supreme Court had seven Republican appointees

美国最高法院指定了 七名共和党陪审员

and two Democratic ones,

以及两名民主党陪审员。

and my client happened to be Osama bin Laden's driver.

而我的客户恰好是 乌萨马·本·拉登的司机。

My opponent was the Solicitor General of the United States,

站在我对立面的是 美国的副检察长，

America's top courtroom lawyer.

也是美国的一名顶级法庭律师。

他当时已辩护了 35 个案件，

He had argued 35 cases.

I wasn't even 35 years old.

而我当时都还没到 35 岁。

And to make matters worse,

更糟糕的是，

the Senate, for the first time since the Civil War,

自美国内战以来， 参议院首次通过了一项法案，

passed a bill to try and remove the case from the docket of the Supreme Court.

试图将此案 从最高法院的议事日程中移除。

Now the speaking coaches say

这时，演讲导师通常会说，

I'm supposed to build tension and not tell you what happens.

我应该创造悬念， 不告诉大家后面发了生什么。

But the thing is, we won.

但结果是，我们赢了。

How?

怎样做到的呢？

今天，我会讨论怎样赢得一场辩论，

Today, I'm going to talk about how to win an argument,

at the Supreme Court or anywhere.

无论是在高等法院， 还是任何其他地方。

The conventional wisdom is that you speak with confidence.

对于如何赢得一场辩论， 通常的建议是，要自信地发言，

That's how you persuade.

让自己听起来具有说服力。

I think that's wrong.

我认为这是错的。

I think confidence is the enemy of persuasion.

我认为，自信是说服力的敌人。

Persuasion is about empathy,

说服力跟同理心是息息相关的，

about getting into people's heads.

是关于进入人们的思维。

That's what makes TED what it is.

TED 就是这样发展起来的。

It's why you're listening to this talk.

这就是为什么你正在听这段演讲。

You could have read it on the cold page,

你本可以在一张冷冰冰的纸上 读完这份演讲稿，

but you didn't.

但你没有。

Same thing with Supreme Court arguments --

最高法院的辩论也是一样——

we write written briefs with cold pages,

我们把案件写在纸上，

but we also have an oral argument.

但我们也有口头的辩论。

We don't just have a system in which the justices write questions

在我们的系统中， 不只是由法官提问，

and you write answers.

而我们被动地去回答。

Why?

为什么？

因为辩论的核心是互动。

Because argument is about interaction.

I want to take you behind the scenes to tell you what I did,

我带让各位了解一下这件事的 来龙去脉，告诉你们我做了什么，

and how these lessons are generalizable.

以及如何将这些技巧 运用到其他场合——

Not just for winning an argument in court,

不只是为了在法庭中赢得诉讼，

but for something far more profound.

其背后还有更深远的意义。

Now obviously, it's going to involve practice,

当然，这是需要练习的，

but not just any practice will do.

但不是任何训练都能达到目的。

My first practice session for Guantanamo,

在应对关塔那摩案子的 第一次练习中，

I flew up to Harvard

我飞到了哈佛。

and had all these legendary professors throwing questions at me.

在那里，许多德高望重的教授 把他们的问题都甩向我。

And even though I had read everything, rehearsed a million times,

而虽然我已经通读了 所有的资料，排练了无数次,

I wasn't persuading anyone.

我依然没有能够说服任何人。

我的论点没有引起共鸣。

My arguments weren't resonating.

I was desperate.

我很绝望。

I had done everything possible,

我已经竭尽所能，

read every book, rehearsed a million times,

读了每一本书，排练了无数次，

and it wasn't going anywhere.

却没有取得任何效果。

So ultimately, I stumbled on this guy --

最终，我偶然遇到了一个家伙，

he was an acting coach, he wasn't even a lawyer.

他并不是表演导师， 甚至都不是律师。

He'd never set foot in the Supreme Court.

他从来没有踏进过 最高法院的大门，

And he came into my office one day wearing a billowy white shirt

有一天，他来到我的办公室， 穿着一件飘逸的白上衣，

and a bolo tie,

戴着条饰扣式领带。

and he looked at me with my folded arms and said,

他双臂交叉，看着我，说：

"Look, Neal, I can tell

“尼尔，我可以察觉到，

that you don't think this is going to work,

你觉得这不会有用，

不如就当给我讲个笑话好了。

but just humor me.

Tell me your argument."

告诉我你的论点。”

So I grabbed my legal pad,

于是，我拿起我的笔记本，

and I started reading my argument.

开始读我的论点。

He said, "What are you doing?"

他说：“你在做什么？”

I said, "I'm telling you my argument."

我说：“我在告诉你我的论点。”

He said, "Your argument is a legal pad?"

他说：“你的论点是你的笔记本？”

I said, "No, but my argument is on a legal pad."

我说：“不是，但是我的 论点在笔记本上。”

He said, "Neal, look at me.

他说：“尼尔，看着我，

Tell me your argument."

告诉我你的论点。”

于是，我开始了论证。

And so I did.

And instantly, I realized,

而在那一瞬间，我发现，

my points were resonating.

我的论点引起了共鸣，

我正在与另一个人建立关系。

I was connecting to another human being.

And he could see the smile starting to form

而他可以看到我在说话时，

as I was saying my words,

脸上浮现的微笑，

and he said, "OK, Neal.

然后，他说：“好的，尼尔。

Now do your argument holding my hand."

现在，握着我的手， 再重复一次你的论点。”

And I said, "What?"

我说：“什么？”

And he said, "Yeah, hold my hand."

他说：“对，握着我的手。”

I was desperate, so I did it.

我决定死马当活马医， 于是握了住了他的手。

And I realized, "Wow, that's connection.

而我突然间感觉到： “哇，这就是人与人之间的关系。

That's the power of how to persuade."

这是说服力的力量。”

And it helped.

这段经历的确帮助了我。

But truthfully, I still got nervous as the argument date approached.

但说实话，在开庭日期渐渐临近时， 我还是有些紧张。

And I knew that even though argument

虽然我知道辩论

was about getting into someone else's shoes

是关于站在别人的角度，

and empathizing,

并拥有同理心，

I needed to have a solid core first.

我还是先要有实在的核心内容。

So I did something outside of my comfort zone.

所以，我做了件 在我舒适区之外的事情。

I wore jewelry -- not just anything,

我带上了一件首饰—— 这不只是件普通的首饰，

but a bracelet that my father had worn his whole life,

而是我父亲戴了一辈子的一块手镯，

until he passed away, just a few months before the argument.

而他在开庭日前的几个月去世了。

I put on a tie

我带上了条领带，

that my mom had given me just for the occasion.

是我母亲专门为了 这个场合给我准备的。

And I took out my legal pad and wrote my children's names on it,

我拿出了笔记本， 将我孩子的名字写在里面，

because that's why I was doing this.

因为他们是我做这件事情的原因，

For them, to leave the country better than I had found it.

为了让他们可以生活在 一个更好的美国。

I got to court, and I was calm.

我到了法庭，内心十分平静。

The bracelet, the tie, the children's names

手镯、领带和孩子的名字

had all centered me.

给予了我无穷的力量。

Like a rock climber extending beyond the precipice,

仿佛一个越过悬崖的攀岩者，

if you have a solid hold, you can reach out.

如果有了稳定的支撑， 你就能够勇敢的前进。

And because argument is about persuasion,

而因为辩论是关于说服力，

I knew I had to avoid emotion.

我知道我必须避免情绪激动。

Displays of emotion fail.

展现出自己的真实情绪 会导致失败，

It's kind of like writing an email in all bold and all caps.

就好比一封全部是 黑体和大写的电子邮件，

It persuades no one.

不会说服任何人。

It's then about you, the speaker,

归根结底，这是关于你，演讲者，

而与听众或信息接收者无关。

not about the listener or the receiver.

Now look, in some settings, the solution is to be emotional.

的确，在某些情况下， 保持情绪化是好的解决方案。

You're arguing with your parents,

你如果和父母吵架，

and you use emotion and it works.

适当表达情绪会比较有用。

Why?

为什么？

因为你的父母是爱你的，

Because your parents love you.

But Supreme Court justices don't love you.

但是最高法院不爱你。

They don't like to think of themselves

他们不喜欢认为

as the type of people persuaded by emotion.

自己是会被情绪影响到的人。

And I reverse engineered that insight too,

我也对这种理解进行了反向工程，

为我的对手设置陷阱， 来激起他们的情绪化反应，

setting a trap for my opponent to provoke his emotional reaction,

所以我自己就可以被视为 平静、稳定的法律之声。

so I could be seen as the calm and steady voice of the law.

And it worked.

这个方法奏效了。

And I remember sitting in the courtroom to learn that we had won.

我还清晰记得坐在法庭里， 得知我们赢得官司的那一刻。

That the Guantanamo tribunals were coming down.

关塔那摩官司要结束了。

And I went out onto the courthouse steps and there was a media firestorm.

我走上法院的台阶， 外面全是长枪短炮的媒体。

Five hundred cameras, and they're all asking me,

有 500 个相机对着我， 都在急切地询问：

"What does the decision mean, what does it say?"

“这个判决意味着什么， 它传达了什么信息？”

那份判决书有 185 页长。

Well, the decision was 185 pages long.

I hadn't had time to read it, nobody had.

我没有足够的时间去读， 其他人也没有。

But I knew what it meant.

但我知道它意味着什么。

And here's what I said on the steps of the Court.

我站在法院的台阶上说：

"Here's what happened today.

“这是今天发生的事情。

You have the lowest of the low --

一个无论从哪个角度 都处于极端劣势的人，

this guy, who was accused of being bin Laden's driver,

这个被指控为本·拉登，

one of the most horrible men around.

这个世上最恶劣的 一个人的司机——

And he sued not just anyone,

不单单是起诉了一个人，

but the nation, indeed, the world's most powerful man,

而是起诉了世上最强大的人，

the president of the United States.

美国总统。

And he brings it not in some rinky-dink traffic court,

而且这一切并不是发生在 一个普普通通的交通法庭，

but in the highest court of the land,

而是在最高等法院，

the Supreme Court of the United States ...

美国的最高法院——

而且他赢了。

And he wins.

That's something remarkable about this country.

这就是这个国家的伟大之处。

在很多其他国家，

In many other countries,

this driver would have been shot,

这个司机会因为

just for bringing his case.

仅仅是提出诉讼就被枪杀。

And more of the point for me, his lawyer would have been shot.

对我来说更重要的是， 他的律师也会被枪杀。

But that's what makes America different.

但这就是美国的不同之处，

What makes America special."

特殊之处。”

Because of that decision,

而因为这个判决，

the Geneva conventions apply to the war on terror,

日内瓦公约也开始 适用于恐怖袭击，

which meant the end of ghost prisons worldwide,

这就意味着 全世界的幽灵监狱的终结，

the end of waterboarding worldwide

全世界水刑的终止，

and an end to those Guantanamo military tribunals.

以及关塔那摩湾 军事法庭的关闭。

By methodically building the case,

通过有条不紊地立案，

and getting into the justices' heads,

影响法官的思想，

we were able to quite literally change the world.

我们确实改变了世界。

Sounds easy, right?

听起来很简单吧？

好像通过充分练习，

You can practice a lot,

avoid displays of emotion,

避免表现出情绪，

and you, too, can win any argument.

你一样也可以赢得任何辩论。

I'm sorry to say, it's not that simple,

但是很抱歉， 并没有那么容易，

my strategies aren't foolproof,

我的策略并不是毫无漏洞，

and while I've won more Supreme Court cases

虽然我赢得的最高法院官司

than most anyone,

几乎比任何人都多，

I've also lost a lot too.

我同样也输掉了很多。

Indeed, after Donald Trump was elected,

的确，在特朗普当选之后，

I was, constitutionally speaking, terrified.

就宪法曾面来说，我吓坏了。

Please understand, this is not about Left versus Right,

请不要误会， 这并非左派和右派之间，

或者任何两方的对立。

or anything like that.

I'm not here to talk about that.

我今天不是来谈这个的。

But just a week in to the new president's term,

各位可能还记得 新总统上任一周后

you might remember those scenes at the airports.

在机场的那些景象。

President Trump had campaigned on a pledge, saying, quote,

特朗普总统曾经许下诺言， 他的原话是：

"I, Donald J. Trump am calling for a complete and total shutdown

“我，唐纳德·特朗普 要求完全禁止

of all Muslim immigration to the United States."

所有穆斯林移民入境美国。”

And he also said, quote, "I think Islam hates us."

他还说： “我认为伊斯兰痛恨我们。”

And he made good on that promise,

而他也真的信守了那个誓言，

banning immigration from seven countries with overwhelmingly Muslim populations.

禁止了七个穆斯林人口为主的 国家的移民进入美国。

My legal team and others went into court right away and sued,

我的法律团队和其他团队 立刻到法庭提起诉讼，

and got that first travel ban struck down.

击退了第一个旅行禁令。

Trump revised it.

于是特朗普对其做了修改，

We went into court again and got that struck down.

我们又一次成功了。

He revised it again,

他又再次修正，

and changed it, adding North Korea,

把朝鲜也纳入其中，

because we all know,

因为我们都知道，

the United States had a tremendous immigration problem with North Korea.

美国有很严重的朝鲜移民问题。

But it did enable his lawyers to go to the Supreme Court and say,

但这么做让他的律师 得以对最高法院说：

"See, this isn't discriminating against Muslims,

“看，我们并非歧视穆斯林，

还包括了非穆斯林的国家。”

it includes these other people too."

我本以为我们拥有制胜的一招。

Now I thought we had the killer answer to that.

I won't bore you with the details,

细节就不在这里说了，

but the thing is, we lost.

但结果是，我们输了。

五票对四票。

Five votes to four.

And I was devastated.

我心力交瘁，

I was worried my powers of persuasion had waned.

我担心我的说服力 已经在衰退。

接下来，发生了两件事。

And then, two things happened.

The first was,

第一件是，

I noticed a part of the Supreme Court's travel ban opinion

我注意到最高法院 对于旅行禁令的意见中，

that discussed the Japanese American interment.

讨论到了日裔美国人的囚禁。

That was a horrific moment in our history,

那是我们历史上 很可怕的一段时期，

in which over 100,000 Japanese Americans had been interned in camps.

有超过十万名日裔美国人 曾经被关押在集中营。

挑战这项阴谋的人当中，

My favorite person to challenge this scheme

was Gordon Hirabayashi,

我最欣赏的是高登平林 （Gordon Hirabayashi），

a University of Washington student.

当时他还是 华盛顿大学的一名学生。

He turned himself in to the FBI,

他向联邦调查局自首，

who said, "Look, you're a first-time offender,

得到的答复是：“你是初犯，

可以直接回家了。 ”

you can go home."

And Gordon said,

而高登却说：

"No, I'm a Quaker, I have to resist unjust laws,"

“不，我是贵格会教徒， 我必须对抗不公平的法律。”

and so they arrested him and he was convicted.

所以，他被逮捕，也被定了罪了。

Gordon's case made it to the Supreme Court.

高登的案子打到了最高法院。

这次我还是打算开门见山，

And again, I'm going to do that thing

where I quash any sense of anticipation you have,

不留任何悬念，

and tell you what happened.

结果就是，

高登输了。

Gordon lost.

But he lost because of a simple reason.

但他输的理由很简单。

因为检察长，

Because the Solicitor General,

that top courtroom lawyer for the government,

政府的顶尖法庭律师，

told the Supreme Court

告诉了最高法院，

that the Japanese American internment was justified by military necessity.

囚禁日裔美国人有正当的理由： 军事必要性。

就这样，

And that was so,

even though his own staff had discovered

虽然他自己的工作人员发现

that there was no need for the Japanese American interment

日裔美国人囚禁是没有必要的，

and that the FBI and the intelligence community

而且 FBI 及情报圈

也都对此深信不疑。

all believed that.

And indeed, that it was motivated by racial prejudice.

的确，那背后的动机 就是种族歧视。

他的团队成员请求副检察长：

His staff begged the Solicitor General,

"Tell the truth, don't suppress evidence."

“说出真相，不要隐瞒证据。”

What did the Solicitor General do?

结果副检察长做了什么？

Nothing.

什么也没做。

He went in and told the "military necessity" story.

他在法庭上复述了 “军事必要性”的故事。

And so the Court upheld Gordon Hirabayashi's conviction.

因此，最高法院裁定， 对高登平林的原判决有效，

And the next year, upheld Fred Korematsu's interment.

隔年，又裁定松丰三郎 （Fred Korematsu）的囚禁判决有效。

Now why was I thinking about that?

我为什么想到了这些呢？

Because nearly 70 years later,

因为将近七十年后，

I got to hold the same office,

我的职位变成了

Head of the Solicitor General's Office.

副检察长办公室主任。

And I got to set the record straight,

而我得以有机会把记录改正了，

explaining that the government had misrepresented the facts

解释了政府在 日本人囚禁的案件中

in the Japanese interment cases.

错误地诠释了整个事件。

And when I thought about the Supreme Court's travel ban opinion,

当我想到最高法院的 旅行禁令意见时，

I realized something.

我发现了一件事。

The Supreme Court, in that opinion,

在那份意见书中，最高法院

went out of its way to overrule the Korematsu case.

特意推翻了松丰的结论。

Now, not only had the Justice Department said

现在，不仅是司法部认为

the Japanese interment was wrong,

日本人囚禁是错的，

最高法院对此也持同样的态度。

the Supreme Court said so too.

That's a crucial lesson about arguments -- timing.

这是一个关于辩论 很重要的一课——时机。

All of you, when you're arguing, have that important lever to play.

各位在辩论时 要善用这项工具。

When do you make your argument?

你要何时提出论证？

You don't just need the right argument,

你不仅需要对的论点，

you need the right argument at the right moment.

你也需要在对的时机 提出对的论证。

When is it that your audience -- a spouse, a boss, a child --

你的观众—— 可能是配偶、老板、

孩子—— 何时最愿意接纳你的观点？

is going to be most receptive?

Now look, sometimes, it's totally out of your control.

有时，这完全不是你能控制的。

Delay has costs that are too extensive.

而延迟的代价太高了。

And so you've got to go in and fight

所以你得直接上战场打仗，

and you very well may, like me, get the timing wrong.

你很可能就会想我一样， 没抓到对的时机。

That's what we thought in the travel ban.

我们认为旅行禁令的案例 就是如此。

And you see,

要知道，

最高法院还没准备好， 要在特朗普任期之初

the Supreme Court wasn't ready, so early in President Trump's term,

推翻他的招牌倡议，

to overrule his signature initiative,

just as it wasn't ready to overrule FDR's Japanese American interment.

就像当初还没准备好推翻 罗斯福的日裔美国人囚禁令。

And sometimes, you just have to take the risk.

有时，你只能去冒险。

但失败的结果也让人难以承受，

But it is so painful when you lose.

保持耐心也绝非易事。

And patience is really hard.

But that reminds me of the second lesson.

但这让我想起了第二堂课。

即使以后才能平反，

Even if vindication comes later,

I realized how important the fight now is,

我也知道立刻挺身而战 有多么重要，

because it inspires, because it educates.

因为它有鼓舞、教育的作用。

安·库尔特（Ann Coulter）写过一篇 关于穆斯林禁令的专栏文章。

I remember reading a column by Ann Coulter about the Muslim ban.

文章中，她是这样说的：

Here's what she said.

"Arguing against Trump was first-generation American,

“和特朗普争辩的 是第一代美国人，

Neal Katyal.

尼尔·凯泰尔。

There are plenty of 10th-generation America-haters.

有相当多第十代的美国仇恨者。

You couldn't get one of them to argue we should end our country

你无法让他们任何一人去争辩，

我们应该通过大量移民 来让我们的国家灭亡。”

through mass-immigration?"

也正是在这个时候，

And that's when emotion,

which is so anathema to a good argument,

作为辩论大敌的情绪，

was important to me.

对我来说也开始变得重要了，

It took emotion outside the courtroom to get me back in.

是将情绪拒之门外， 让我重新回到了法庭。

When I read Coulter's words, I was angry.

读到库尔特的文字时，我很生气。

I rebel against the idea

我很反对这个说法：

that being a first-generation American would disqualify me.

身为第一代美国人， 我没有资格为这个国家发声。

I rebel against the idea that mass immigration

我也反对这个说法： 大量移民

would end this country,

会让这个国家灭亡，

instead of recognizing that as literally the rock on which this country was built.

而不承认移民其实 是美国立国的基础。

读到库尔特的文章时，

When I read Coulter,

I thought about so many things in my past.

我想到好多过去的事。

我想到我父亲，

I thought about my dad,

who arrived here with eight dollars from India,

他从印度来到这里时， 身上只有八美金，

and didn't know whether to use the colored bathroom or the white one.

而且不知道应该使用 有色人种还是白人的的厕所。

I thought about his first job offer, at a slaughter house.

我想到他的第一份工作 是在屠宰场。

Not a great job for a Hindu.

对印度人来说 这可不是什么好工作。

I thought about how, when we moved to a new neighborhood in Chicago

我想到当我们与 另一个印度家庭

with one other Indian family,

搬到芝加哥一个新的居民区时，

that family had a cross burned on its lawn.

那家人的草皮上 被烙上了十字架。

Because the racists aren't very good

因为种族主义者不太能分辨

at distinguishing between African Americans and Hindus.

非裔美国人和印度人的差别。

And I thought about all the hate mail I got

我想到在关塔那摩 案件审理期间，

during Guantanamo,

我收到的所有仇恨信件，

for being a Muslim lover.

说我偏爱穆斯林。

同样的，种族主义者也不太能

Again, the racists aren't very good

with distinctions between Hindus and Muslims, either.

分辨非裔、印度人 和穆斯林的差别。

Ann Coulter thought that being the child of an immigrant was a weakness.

安·库尔特认为， 身为移民的孩子是一种劣势。

她简直大错特错了。

She was profoundly, profoundly wrong.

It is my strength,

这反而是我的优势，

because I knew what America was supposed to stand for.

因为我知道美国 本应代表的是什么。

I knew that in America,

我知道，在美国，

me, a child of a man who came here with eight dollars in his pocket,

我，身为来到美国时口袋里只有 八块美金的人所生的孩子，

could stand in the Supreme Court of the United States

能够站在美国最高法院里，

on behalf of a detested foreigner,

代表一位被憎恶的外国人，

like Osama bin Laden's driver,

比如本·拉登的司机，

and win.

并胜诉。

And it made me realize,

这让我了解到，

even though I may have lost the case,

虽然我输了穆斯林禁令案，

I was right about the Muslim ban too.

但我的论点依然是对的。

No matter what the court decided,

无论法庭裁决如何，

they couldn't change the fact

都无法改变

that immigrants do strengthen this country.

移民让这个国家更强大的事实。

Indeed, in many ways, immigrants love this country the most.

而且，在许多层面上， 移民反而是最热爱这个国家的人。

When I read Ann Coulter's words,

当我读到了安·库尔特的文章，

I thought about the glorious words of our Constitution.

我想到了宪法中的那神圣的文字。

The First Amendment.

第一修正案。

Congress shall make no law establishing religion.

国会不得针对宗教来制定法律。

I thought about our national creed,

我想到了我们国家的格言，

"E plurbis unum,"

“E plurbis unum”，

"out of many come one."

“合众为一”。

最重要的是，我了解到，

Most of all, I realized,

the only way you can truly lose an argument

真正能让你输掉一场辩论的，

只有放弃。

is by giving up.

So I joined the lawsuit by the US Congress

于是，我参加了美国国会的诉讼，

challenging President Trump's addition of a citizenship question to the census.

挑战特朗普总统在人口普查中 增加了公民身份问题。

A decision with huge implications.

这个判决有意义深远。

It was a really hard case.

是一个难度相当高的案件。

Most thought we would lose.

大部分人都认为我们会输。

But the thing is, we won.

但是我们赢了——

Five votes to four.

五票对四票。

The Supreme Court basically said

最高法院只是说，

President Trump and his cabinet's secretary had lied.

特朗普总统和 他的内阁的秘书说了谎。

And now I've gotten back up and rejoined the fight,

现在，我已重整旗鼓， 重新加入战局，

and I hope each of you, in your own ways, does so too.

我希望各位也都能 用自己的方式这么做。

I'm getting back up

我重新站了起来，

because I'm a believer that good arguments do win out in the end.

因为我相信， 好的论证终究会胜出。

The arc of justice is long,

正义的弧线很长，

and bends, often, slowly,

而通常弯曲得非常缓慢，

but it bends so long as we bend it.

但只要我们想让它改变轨迹， 它就会改变轨迹。

And I've realized the question is not how to win every argument.

我也同样认识到，问题并不是 要如何赢得每一场辩论，

而是在输掉之后， 如何重整旗鼓。

It's how to get back up when you do lose.

Because in the long run,

因为，长远来看，

good arguments will win out.

好的论证总会胜出。

If you make a good argument,

如果你有好的论证，

it has the power to outlive you,

它存世的时间有可能比你还长，

延伸到你的核心价值之外，

to stretch beyond your core,

to reach those future minds.

触碰到未来人的思想。

And that's why all of this is so important.

这就是为什么 这一切如此重要。

I'm not telling you how to win arguments for the sake of winning arguments.

我告诉各位如何赢得辩论， 并不是要为了让你们赢得辩论。

This isn't a game.

这不是场比赛。

I'm telling you this because even if you don't win right now,

我要告诉各位这些， 是因为就算你现在无法取胜，

如果你有好的论证， 历史迟早也会证明你是对的。

if you make a good argument, history will prove you right.

I think back to that acting coach all the time.

我常常会回想起那位表演教练。

And I've come to realize

我渐渐发现，

that the hand I was holding was the hand of justice.

我握住的那只手，是正义的手。

That outstretched hand will come for you.

那只伸出的手会来找你。

It's your decision to push it away

由你来决定是要把它推开，

or to keep holding it.

还是继续握紧它。

Thank you so much for listening.

非常大家的聆听。